LAWS(MAD)-2006-3-439

GOPALAKRISHNAN @ GOPAL Vs. STATE

Decided On March 02, 2006
Gopalakrishnan @ Gopal Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in Sessions Case No.63 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, is the appellant herein. He was tried before the Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge, on completion of the trial, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs.1000/ - carrying a default sentence of imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 364, IPC; life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, IPC with a fine of Rs.1000/ - carrying a default sentence of one year imprisonment; imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - carrying a default sentence of one year imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 397 and 201, IPC. The sentences were however directed to run concurrently, which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) THE charge against the appellant/accused is that Amalapushpam, the deceased in this case, and the accused were having illicit intimacy with each other and since Amalapushpam persuaded the accused to marry her, the accused, with an intention to get away with her once for all, on 15.07.1997 around 08.30 am he took Amalapushpam, from the hospital where she was working as a nurse, and after taking her around to many places, around 10.30 pm at Poolangulam, he committed the murder of Amalapushpam, by repeatedly attacking on her head with a wooden stick, and removed the gold jewels i.e. 23.200 grams weighing gold chain having a cross as a dollar; gold covering bangles -3; one watch, 4.200 grams weighing ear stud and a sum of Rs.1200/ - from her purse; and with a view to screen the offence, buried her in the same place. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 32 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.32 and M.Os.1 to 15.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution, which rests only on circumstantial evidence, as could be discerned from the evidence and exhibits, shorn of unnecessary details, is as follows :